The paper prepared for a United Methodist group in 1991 by Dr. James Holsinger, titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality," should be "must" reading for every high school class in which the subject of sex is discussed. One entire page of the seven-page treatise is necessary to remark the entire bibliography for this well-researched paper, accounting for its brevity and the fact that it's informational rather than empirical. This paper is the one that democratic senators on the Kennedy-chaired Health Committee used to batter the doctor in his recent hearing, strangely eliciting from him little by way of argument. I watched the hearing online.
I've read the paper, and it brought back memories of the instructions and movies regarding sexually transmitted diseases mandated by the U.S. Navy for its sailors' knowledge and/or attendance. Holsinger, citing numerous sources and statistics, did a masterful job of boiling down massive amounts of information into succinct and easily understood terminology.
Holsinger is a distinguished professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, and has held other important posts in the Health field, including head of the Health Department of Kentucky and chancellor of the UK medical school. The local newspaper, the Lexington Herald-Leader, about as far left as a monopoly newspaper can get (and that is very far), has a dim view of Holsinger and ran a Washington Post (even farther left) editorial in its 20 July issue, in which the editorialist categorized Holsinger's paper as "prurient," rather than the scientific instrument it is. It seems doubtful that the editorialist had read the paper.
Even though plain common sense dictates that the jamming of an instrument – most any instrument – into the rectum can be extremely harmful, not just in the destruction of tissue but in the spreading of various diseases in a very sensitive area, Dr. Holsinger outlined the makeup of bodily orifices from the biological and physiological standpoint, as well as the ease/violence with which they are violated physically, and also outlined how male and female reproductive organs complement each other, while male organs do just the opposite.
Dr. Holsinger not only remarked the complementary characteristics of the male and female organs, thus remarking the non-complementary characteristics of male and male organs, but took notice of the fact that the human body does not possess a cloaca, defined as "SEWER; the common chamber into which the intestinal and urogenital tracts discharge especially in monotreme mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and elasmobranch fishes." Obviously, using an organ designed for discharging excrement as a receptacle for receiving something from the urinary tract is not only unhealthy and unnatural, but is an assault upon the senses, not to mention common decency.
The same could be said for oral sex, another homosexual practice, though Holsinger was not asked to discuss that. The mouth is designed for, among other things, the intake of food and drink, but not the intake of a substance from the urinary tract, not to mention the impurities and diseases contained therein or the exposure to an instrument used to discharge bodily detritus. The human has no cloaca, thus no sewer for the mixing of substances necessary to discharge, thus the mixing of substances from the intestinal tract and the urinary tract are not to be intermingled as in either oral or anal sex, if, indeed, either is actual sex. Dr. Holsinger's point is well-taken here.
Moral decadence is always a signal remarking the weakening of the national fabric. As homosexual behavior or other deviations such as pedophilia and incest (even adultery and fornication) gain respect in the society, a fatal flaw is introduced. Dr. Holsinger pointed out part of that flaw, should be congratulated for it, and should be the next surgeon general, but only if he sticks by his paper. Kennedy's committee is almost certain not to report him out for a full vote, even though the surgeon general position has been vacant for a year, no matter what Holsinger does or does not do. For some strange reason, the solons seem to think the small homosexual-vote is important…or they (at least the democrats) think homosexuality is perfectly normal and the greatest thing since sliced bread. Unless he is willing to reject his own facts possibly just to get the position (unthinkable, from this man), Holsinger might get the vote, but don't bet the farm.
In the meantime, the suggestion is herein made that everyone read Holsinger's paper of 1991. It's an eye-opener. Ted Kennedy hates it and tried to trivialize it, so that should be another good reason.